20472063, 2006
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
0305-750X/$ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.03.003
and
SZLO
PINTER *
LA
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada
Summary. In this article, we study 19 developing and developed countries to identify key challenges, approaches, and innovations in strategic and coordinated action for sustainable development at the national level. We are interested in the institutional fabric of implementing
sustainable development. What are governments actually doing to organize the processes required
for this? What are the institutional innovations in this regard and what kind of typologies can be
identied?
The opinions expressed here do not reect any ocial opinion of the European Environment Agency. They reect
personal opinions of the author and have been developed when the author was aliated with the Environmental
Policy Research Centre, Berlin.
* The paper has been developed as part of the project National Strategies for Sustainable Development. Challenges,
Approaches, and Innovations in Strategic and Coordinated Action that has been funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft
fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Foreign Aairs
Canada, and Environment Canada. The nal project report and all country case studies can be downloaded at:
http://www.iisd.org/measure/capacity/sdsip.asp. An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the 2004
Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change, December 34, 2004 in Berlin. We
would like to thank all discussants for their comments. We are grateful for valuable comments provided by three
anonymous reviewers of World Development. We acknowledge the support and information provided by Jan-Peter
Schemmel and Harald Lossack of GTZ from the Government of Canada; Lynn Berthiaume, Lyn Ponniah, John
Eby, Gary Pringle, Nancy Hamzawi, Sandra Scott, Cynthia MacRae, Jennifer Moore, and Catherine Coleman from
IUCN; Andrew Deutz, Tabeth Chiuta, and Kirsten Rohrmann from the UN Division for Sustainable Development
and by all government ocials who provided input and feedback toward the development of the case studies.
Furthermore, we would like to thank all case study authors: Mary Jane Middelkoop, Barbara Sweazey, and Julie
Pezzack from Stratos Inc., Canada and Simone Klawitter, Doris Tharan, Stefan Lindemann, Mireia Tarradell,
Roland Zieschank, and Aleksandra Zlobinska from the Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universitat of
Berlin, Germany. Final revision accepted: March 13, 2006.
2047
2048
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Despite some true progress made, our ndings indicate that countries are still at the early stages
of learning toward eective action for sustainable development. This applies both to developing
and developed countries. Key unsolved challenges include (a) coordination with the national
budget, (b) coordination with sub-national level sustainable development strategies, and (c) coordination with other national-level strategy processes.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words sustainable development strategies, developing and developed countries, model of
strategic management, tool box
1. INTRODUCTION
For over a decade now, the United Nations
has been asking countries to pursue strategic
and coordinated action for sustainable development through the creation of national sustainable development strategies (NSDS, see for an
overview UN DSD, 2004). Whereas the concept of sustainable development has established
itself successfully as a central guiding principle
for many dierent political institutions at all
levels of public and corporate decision making,
its translation into concrete action proves to be
a much more dicult challenge (Laerty, 2004;
Laerty & Meadowcraft, 2000; OECD, 2002).
Five years after the Earth Summit in 1992, a
Special Session of the United Nations came to
a disappointing progress review: single success
stories were outweighed by the overall failure
of countries to give appropriate political weight
to meaningful implementation (Brown, 1997).
This review led governments to agree on the
target of having a NSDS introduced by 2002,
the year of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. Being
pushed by the OECD (OECD-DAC, 2001)
and the United Nations (UN International
Forum on National Strategies for Sustainable
Development, 2001), nearly all countries intensied eorts and subsequently adopted new or
revised NSDS shortly before or after the WSSD
(Jorgens, 2004).
A meaningful translation of the rather broad
paradigm of sustainable development into concrete action encounters many problems. International agencies (OECD, 2002; OECD-DAC,
2001; UN DESA, 2002) as well as academic
scholars (Dalal-Clayton & Bass, 2002; Janicke
& Jorgens, 2000; Martinuzzi & Steurer, 2003)
have developed a number of criteria of good
practice for NSDS. They have been broadly reected and repeatedly discussed in recent years.
The list of criteria comprises the development
of long-term visions and their linkage to
short-term action, institutions for horizontal
2049
2050
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
1. Leadership
Type of strategy approach
Demonstrating commitment and focus
Incorporating the inter-generational SD principle
Incorporating the interdependency SD principle
Coordination
4. Monitoring
Tracking progress
toward strategies
2. Planning
Understanding SD trends
Participation
legal basis
Institutional basis
Policy assessment
Institutionalizing participation
Building Trust
3. Implementation
Accountability
Financing
Mix of policy initiatives
Figure 1. Roadmap to the challenges for strategic and coordinated action for sustainable development, put into relation
with the key tenets of strategic management. Source: Swanson et al. (2004, p. 7) (on the basis of Dalal-Clayton and
Bass, 2002).
Demonstrating commitment
and focus
2051
2052
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Legal basis
Enactment as law
Canada, European
Union, Mexico
Institutional basis
Green Cabinet
Home outside of environment departments
Inter-departmental Commission
Policy assessment
European Union
Switzerland
United Kingdom
pean Union, or Switzerland. Another innovation in this line are the so-called Green Cabinets that are composed of several ministers or
junior ministers and are supported by committees composed of higher civil servants. In Germany, for example, a Green Cabinet manages
the process. The Cabinet is coordinated by
the Chancellors Oce and seems to be a new
venue for argumentation and interest moderation at a high-level of political decision making.
Similar experiences can be reported for the
United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the Philippines, although these countries feature a
slightly dierent institutional design. At the
Cabinet level in the United Kingdom, sustainable development policy is coordinated by the
Cabinet Committee on the Environment. In
addition, each department designates a Green
Minister to sit on the Cabinet Sub-Committee
of Green Ministers. Each Green Minister is
responsible for ensuring that environmental
and sustainable development considerations
are integrated into their departmental strategies
and policies. Switzerland has chosen a similar
approach, but on a lower level: here, a directorate-level inter-departmental established by the
Federal Council coordinates the process of
NSDS implementation. In the Philippines, the
responsible Philippine Council for Sustainable
Development (PCSD) is chaired by the vicechairman of the National Economic Development Authority. In China, responsibilities are
divided among Ministries and governmental
committees, such as the State Planning Commission and the State Science and Technology
Commission in cooperation with the Administrative Centre for Chinas Agenda 21. The national Agenda 21 is highly integrated into the
Five-Year Planning process of Chinas econ-
2053
Responsibility
Shifting of responsibility to
prime minister/president
Financing
Green budgeting
HIPC debt relief
Donor coordination
Mix of specic
SD initiatives
Action plans
Expenditure policy initiatives
Economic policy initiatives
Regulatory policy initiatives
Institutional policy initiatives
2054
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
2055
Process monitoring
Monitoring outcomes
2056
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
2. coordination
with
other
strategy
processes;
3. coordination with sub-national and local
strategy processes.
Beyond the design of more or less comprehensive written strategy documents, it is these three
areas of action where talk about sustainable
development is turned into action (see Table 5).
(a) Coordination with the national budgeting
process
Budget processes are central to the functioning of the government: it is the availability and
spending of resources that reveals whether or
not sustainable development is taken seriously.
Sustainability has to be reected in expenditure
and revenue generation. Creating incentive
structures, implementing spending reviews,
shifting taxes, and creating better transparency
and responsibility through green budgeting are
examples of the tools.
In all countries studied, the vision and objectives created through a SDS process still has little inuence on national budget expenditures
and revenue generation. National sustainable
development strategies still remain at the
periphery of government decision making.
Most countries studied had mechanisms in
place whereby government departments prepare plans that articulate proposed expenditures. However, these plans seldom align with
the NSDS and are not subject to a sustainability impact assessment. More elusive to nd
from the research is a country, where the over-
With national
budgeting processes
Municipal SD strategies
Local Agenda 21 process (e.g., China,
Denmark, Costa Rica, and South Korea)
Denmark
South Korea
Incentive structures
Spending review
Environmental taxes
Links to national planning process
United Kingdom
Canada
Philippines
Morocco
Germany, Canada, Cameroon,
Madagascar, South Korea
Germany, United Kingdom
all budget plan contains transparent information about the impact of overall spending on
sustainability and charts a way for improving
the performance.
A number of interesting approaches and
innovations however, were observed in our research. For example, the requirement for implementation of key priority areas in PRSPs to
reach the Heavily Indebted Pour Countries
debt relief completion points, results in attention from the national budgetary process (e.g.,
Cameroon and Madagascar). The trade-o that
has been acknowledged, however, is that the
PRSP feels less country owned (GTZ, 2000, p.
12). The irony is that the NSDS, which are typically more country owned, have less pressure
on them to be implemented (GTZ, 2000).
The United Kingdom emerged as an innovator in their approach of spending reviews. All
departments are required to produce a sustainable development report that outlines the potential SD impacts related to public spending
related to proposed policies, plans, and programs. While departments appear to be struggling with this requirement, the Government
has been developing tools and guidance to assist with the process. In Canada, the 25 government departments are required to prepare a
departmental SD strategy every three years.
However, it is still the situation where annual
departmental plans submitted to the Parliament remain a document distinct from departmental SD strategies. While some departments
have recognized inherent similarities and have
integrated the two documents, most departments have not.
Another notable approach is through the
introduction of a tax shift. For instance, countries where environmental taxes represent a
large portion of the government revenues, can
be said to have better integrated the SD into
the budgeting process. The most prominent
example for this approach is Sweden (as described above). Integrating SD principles into
existing development planning processes is another approach. This is Mexicos SD strategy
approach. The 200106 National Development
Plan is translated into a set of programs which
serve as long-term policy guides and are the
basis for much of the public spending. While
this approach does create more direct linkages
with the national budgeting processes, it comes
with the disadvantage that the SD strategy and
its included objectives are not developed in as
comprehensive a manner as that which occurs
with separate SD strategies.
2057
2058
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
For countries which pursued either cross-sectoral or sectoral SD strategies, the extent of
coordination among strategies was minimal.
For developing countries such as Cameroon
and Madagascar, the PRSP process contained
minimal discussion of the environment or the
national environmental management strategy
process that was in place in both countries. In
Canada, there was little visible coordination.
Canada has recognized the diculty and has
developed a number of coordinating mechanisms including a Deputy-Minister level Coordinating Committee on SD and the Interdepartmental Network on SD Strategies. However, it would appear that these coordinating
mechanisms have not yet matched the level of
complexity inherent in the inter-dependencies
of economic, social, and environmental sustainability.
The Philippines case highlights an innovative
approach for coordinating among dierent
strategy processes. The National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) was designated as the lead government agency for the
PCSD. The fact that the PCSD Secretariat is
located in the NEDA premises and that national planning in the Philippines has a high
component of multi-sectoral integration has
facilitated the work of the PCSD. In Morocco,
through a national integration workshop, key
recommendations from each of the sectoral
workshops were brought together to produce
a cohesive, integrated Environmental Action
Plan (PANE). In turn, this plan was then linked
through cross-sectoral action areas with Moroccos three other national development plans:
the Economic and Social Development Plan
(19992003) (PDES); the Plan to Combat
Desertication (PAN/LCD); and the Land
Management Plan (SNAT).
As previously mentioned, Germanys national
SD strategy established cross-cutting themes
to guide measures. Other examples are PRSPs
and national environmental strategies which
help mitigate the silo approach (e.g., Cameroon,
Madagascar, and South Korea). Many countries
have articulated cross-cutting issues and action
plans such as climate change action plans, organic farming action plans, or land-use reduction plans. Denmark has a rich tradition in this
regard. Action plans are also a common tool at
the European level, especially under the framework of the 6th Environmental Action Program,
where thematic strategies are developed.
Finally, Green Cabinets are a tool for helping
to coordinate with other national strategy pro-
2059
Institutionalizing participation
Building trust
Innovations
Philippines, Germany
Cameroon
United Kingdom
Costa Rica
Canada, Denmark,
Morocco, Poland,
Sweden, Switzerland
2060
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
A similar point can be made for the implementation issue. The need for capacity building
refers to developing and developed countries
alike. Albeit, of course, on quite dierent levels
we nd that there rarely is sucient political
commitment in developing and developed
countries. Quite often the sustainable development strategy does not follow an integrated
framework of goals, objectives, and measures.
New agencies, bodies, or committees are
founded but often do not have appropriate
stang, resources, and power. Central budgets
remain largely untouched. Many of the strategies serve partly as a means of post-rationalizing the mix of policy initiatives that have
already been created from other existing political and institutional processes.
However, this is not to say that major dierences do not continue to exist, both regarding
the institutional context and content. A dominant approach has not appeared yet, also not
from a regional perspective. There is obviously
room for mutual learning between countries
regarding the institutionalization of processes
for strategic and coordinated action on sustainability. Additionally, what lessons can be drawn
for future policy support by international organizations? First, a national strategy is not simply
the solution per se. It needs more than a strategy
document and a multi-stakeholder process organized around it to actually change policies for
sustainable development. Strategic behavior as
demanded by the public policy literature nds
its restriction in the politics of bureaucratic interest negotiation. Success depends on a countrys
ability to identify leverage points for inuencing
SD, to identify emerging issues, and to continuously learn and adapt to changes. Getting the
process right is critically important over the
medium to long term. Prerequisites are, however, stronger political commitment and better
2061
coordination. Strategic action for SD will remain at the periphery of the government as long
as it is not connected to visible incentives and
sanctions that reward action or punish non-action. Strategy processes need better ownership,
commitment, and a better common understanding among all levels of the government.
The core question is where is this supposed
to come from? One approach to catalyze
better ownership within government is through
strengthening central coordination, probably
best through allocating relevant competencies
at the Prime Ministers or Presidents Oce. This
has to go hand in hand with a more systematic
use of integrated assessments and indicators.
Strategies need, however, also to be manageable.
Eorts should be directed at the most urgent
problems, and public participation processes
should be directly tailored to identify them.
Increasing transparency and accountability
through reporting obligations, external auditing, and tailored consultation can win new allies.
Strong leverage can be reached through
strengthening of coordination with the budget,
that is, through spending reviews and annual
green budgeting reports, and a strengthening of
coordination among all levels of government.
The institutional fabricdespite all individual progressremains rather thin from an
overall perspective. This conrms the premises
from the public policy literature that learning
leads in most cases only to changes in minor aspects of policies. A comparison with the rich
institutional landscape that we nd for economic development and cooperation, that is,
that is much richer in terms of actors, rules,
sanctions, inventories set of activities, and
political leverage, demonstrates best the magnitude of the challenge that countries world-wide
are still facing in establishing a sound institutional landscape for Sustainable Development.
NOTES
1. This article focuses on process rather than content.
To what extent the SDS resulted in tangible progress
toward SD is another question altogetheralbeit a
critical one. We do not assume that a good process
will always lead to good results, but an assessment
of process provides a necessary proxy for eectiveness
and can provide practical information (see for a
similar conclusion in the analysis of the eectiveness
of global environmental assessment: Eckley et al.,
2001; Pinter, 2002). Our research was not intended to
produce a step-by-step how to manual for SD
strategy process. Rather, this article outlines a synthesis of some of the key challenges, approaches and
tools, and innovations at various stages throughout
the strategy process.
2. The article is based mostly on the 19 case studies
conducted and the subsequent synthesis report (Swanson, Pinter, Bregha, Volkery, & Jacob, 2004). For the
purpose of readability, we abstain from citing each case
study when speaking about single innovations discovered.
2062
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
REFERENCES
Brown, K. (1997). The road from Rio. Journal of
International Development, 9(3), 383389.
Dalal-Clayton, B., & Bass, S. (2002). Sustainable development strategiesa resource book. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., [International Institute for
Environment and Development].
Eckley, N. et al. (2001). Designing eective assessment:
The role of participation science and governance and
focus. Cambridge, MA: Research and Assessment
Systems for Sustainability, Environment and Natural
Resource Program, Harvard University.
European Commission (2004). National sustainable
development strategies in the European Union. A
rst Analysis by the European Commission. Commission Sta Working Document, European Commission, Brussels.
GTZDeutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit. (2000). Strategies for sustainable development in the thicket of national planning
processesFrom convergent concepts to coherent
actions in development cooperation. GTZ, Eschborn.
Isberto, E. (1998). The Philippine council for sustainable
development: like cooking rice cakes. World Resources Institute, Global Topics, Governance and
Institutions. <http://www.wri.org/wri/governance/
pdf/ncsdsgfed/philippines.pdf> Accessed 17.02.04.
Jacob, K., Hertin, J., Bartolomeo, M., Volkery, A., &
Wilkinson, D. (2004). Ex-ante sustainability appraisal of national-level policies: a comparative study of
assessment practice in seven countries. Paper presented at the 2004 Berlin Conference on the human
dimension of global environmental change in Berlin,
December 34, 2004.
Jacob, K., & Volkery, A. (2004). Institutions and
instruments for government self-regulation: environmental policy integration in a cross-country perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(3),
291309.
Janicke, M., & Jorgens, H. (Eds.) (2000). Umweltplanung
im internationalen Vergleich. Strategien der Nachhaltigkeit. Berlin: Springer [Environmental Planning in International Comparison. Strategies of
Sustainability].
Jorgens, H. (2004). Governance by diusion: implementing global norms through cross-national imitation and learning. In W. Laerty (Ed.), Governance
for sustainable development. The challenge of adapting
form to function (pp. 246283). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Laerty, W. (2004). Introduction: form and function
in governance for sustainable development. In W.
Laerty (Ed.), Governance for sustainable develop-
2063